If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Unions are incredibly important for worker's rights, and any corruption or mess-ups in the union is by far outweighed by the benefits and power it grants its workers.

Until they start organising strikes because the company no longer needs some of those workers since they introduced automated systems. But hey, fuck progress. Self entitled morons with no economic sense think that they should keep their job despite it being completely unnecessary and will gladly disrupt the lives of millions of people. (yes, I've moved on to the London underground unions)

Until they start organising strikes because the company no longer needs some of those workers since they introduced automated systems. But hey, fuck progress. Self entitled morons with no economic sense think that they should keep their job despite it being completely unnecessary and will gladly disrupt the lives of millions of people. (yes, I've moved on to the London underground unions)

Yes, let's get everyone unemployed and increase the money gap between managers and employees. The fault does not fall on the union if you're dependent on a company that mistreats its employees.

Wait, what? No! Private get paid too. After all, you'll have private architects, engineers, builders, manufacturers... And that's just relating to construction. What I'm saying is that automation would reduce the number of people needed in a private business to make money. This frees them to work in the public sector providing services to society, such as healthcare. The government gets more revenue from taxes, people get better public services by having more people available to work for them.

No, without unions everyone in the private sector would get under-paid. Those fired would somehow automatically be hired into the public sector, where the government would have to increase taxes in order to sustain the sudden influx of employees, causing everyone in the private sector to become even more poor.

Aside from which, public sectors also need to be (and are) unionized. How about that London underground you were talking about. Isn't that unionized?

Wait, what? No! Private get paid too. After all, you'll have private architects, engineers, builders, manufacturers... And that's just relating to construction. What I'm saying is that automation would reduce the number of people needed in a private business to make money. This frees them to work in the public sector providing services to society, such as healthcare. The government gets more revenue from taxes, people get better public services by having more people available to work for them.

this assumes there is an efficient way to reallocate labor under a system as market-driven as is the west

You're not following the logic. We're not talking about a sudden and drastic cut in the number of private employees. It would be a gradual shift: a slowly decrease in the number of people in private jobs while increasing production, and a steady increase in public jobs in tune with the increased tax revenue.

There's no requirement to be unionised in England. And the London underground unions do a great job of demonstrating how irritating and disruptive an overpowered union can be. Bastards keep striking and refuse to let TFL reduce employees despite them not being needed any more.